memoryguard_memory_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds key behavioral context: it is a local soft-delete recorded as status=deleted and affects future recall. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the non-destructive nature explicitly, with no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no waste; the primary usage is front-loaded, and the clarifying soft-delete note is brief and valuable. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral outcome. It does not explicitly mention the requirement of idempotency_key or prerequisites, but these are captured in the schema. It is largely complete, with only minor gaps like potential audit implications.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described (memory_id, idempotency_key, agent_instance_id). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (one known memory) with scope ('from future recall'), clearly distinguishing it from write/update/read siblings. It also clarifies it is a soft-delete, not irreversible erasure, which is a precise behavioral distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when owner must remove one known memory from future recall') and when not to ('Do not use for irreversible erasure'), but does not name a specific alternative tool. It gives clear guidance without naming a sibling, so it is slightly below the 5 threshold.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.